Over the weekend, the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 tragedy turned into a Law and Order episode on the international stage with Secretary of State John Kerry appearing on Fox News and other outlets to make a case against Russia, prompting Fox News interviewer Chris Wallace to observe that Kerry was once “a prosecutor in Massachusetts.”

So what does Kerry’s case consist of? The U.S. is confident that the murder weapon was an SA-11 Gadfly9K37M1 Buk -1M fired missile. A dispatch from the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine indicates that the rocket launcher was given to pro-Russian separatists by Moscow. At this point, no one is saying that the separatists intended to down a passenger jet. Evidence (see below) suggests that rebel forces believed the plane was a Ukrainian military transport vehicle, since the Buk radar guidance system provides very, very little information about the type of target it’s pointing at. Pro-Russian conspiracy mongers, meanwhile, are looking to plant blame for the incident on Ukraine, claiming that the downing of the plane was a deliberate act of the Ukrainian government.

The entire future of the Ukrainian conflict could change dramatically and decisively as a result of last week’s events. The United States may finally have the justification to begin better arming the Ukrainians, which would escalate the conflict. So far the Pentagon has only provided non-lethal assistance. But Kerry said the U.S. is talking with the Kiev about “what they need,” and that could include “anything except American troops.”

The U.S. will also look to convince European partners to impose tougher sanctions on Russia. “Four percent of Russia’s trade is with the United States; 50 percent of their engagement is with Europe,” Kerry told Fox News. If the U.S. can present a case to show that Russia gave the Ukrainians the arms and the training to down an airliner carrying mostly Dutch citizens, European partners may side with the U.S. in a tougher sanctions regime.

The argument against Russia must be incredibly persuasive. Here’s a look at the forensic technologies that will make the case.

Infrared Satellite Imagery

“We know with a certainty that we saw the launch from this area … we know that it occurred at this very moment that this aircraft disappeared from the radar screen” said Kerry on Sunday.

The most important element in instilling similar certainty among European partners will probably be infrared satellite imagery. The National Reconnaissance Office, or NRO, and the Air Force Space Command operate a number of infrared satellites, such as the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS). There are currently two SBIRS satellites in orbit, but there will be six by 2022, with Lockheed Martin as developer, under control of Air Force Space Command.

More on the Shootdown of MH17

The NRO couldn’t comment on the use of infrared satellites in the MH17 case, except to tell Defense One that “facts about the NRO constellation, including capabilities and past and present operations are classified.” But the U.S. has understood the importance of infrared satellite imagery for reconnaissance since the 1950s when we developed these systems for very much the same reason we are using them today, to track rocket launches from machines like the SA-11. For a great primer, read Sean Gallagher’s piece here.

Satellite images provide a literal smoking-gun portrait of the events surrounding the downed plane. But the U.S.has burned its fingers on smoking-gun satellite images before. Other pieces of evidence will likely play a role as the U.S. builds its case.

Chemical Signatures on Airplane Parts

To prove that its theory of the events is true, the U.S. needs data from investigators on the ground in Ukraine from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE. They, in turn, need access to the debris at the crash site to collect samples from evidence. That’s proven to be a thorny issue, as evidenced by news reports that the controlling separatist forces in Donetsk are obstinate, threatening, commonly intoxicated and have blocked both media and investigators.

Kerry said that OSCE monitors were given just three hours to access the scene on Saturday—and the site is already compromised. “We understand airplane parts have been removed,” Kerry said.

If the Obama administration is correct, what will the ground evidence show? The distribution of debris, once fully catalogued, would confirm a violent sudden explosion, as opposed to a long trail of parts indicating a slow breaking apart and would include missile shrapnel. It would also show that the radar-guided missile likely exploded within about 65 feet from the target. Infrared imaging might show explosive residue somewhat evenly distributed on the bottom of the plane. Conversely, an excessive amount of explosive residue on the engines could indicate that the missile was heat seeking and not shot from an SA-11 and that the U.S. was wrong.

The Black Boxes

The Boeing 777, like all commercial aircraft, has two components recording inflight data. There’s a cockpit voice recorder in the front and a flight data recorder in the tail of the plane, which records information from the various sensors and other indicators throughout the craft. Data from these two sources is collected in the crash survivable memory unit or CSMU, which has been built to withstand the heat, water, and the physical effects of a major crash.

Controversy has surrounded the condition these boxes at the MH17 crash site, with conflicting reports indicating that they were to be sent to Moscow. The Donetsk rebels and Malaysian representatives brokered a deal, announced yesterday, to exchange the boxes. Hours earlier on Monday morning, the speculation over their condition reached a fever pitch when the New York Post ran a screaming headline declaring a “rebel plot” to steal the recorders. Certainly they were in rebel hands for at least several hours. (Update 7/22: Rebels in eastern Ukraine have now handed over the two black boxes to a Malaysian delegation.)

A pro-Russian separatist shows members of the media a black box belonging to Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, before its handover to Malaysian representatives, in Donetsk July 22, 2014. Maxim Zmeyev/Reuters

How hard is it to hack a black box? According to technical experts familiar with their design who spoke to Defense One, the answer is not very. Modern-day flight data recorders use solid state drives, SSDs, to store information. Unlike the hard drive in most PCs, SSDs consist of a bunch of memory flash drives stacked on top of one another. They store memory with no moving parts so they are considered far more rugged than conventional hard drives. This is why engineers began using them on planes.

Ironically, SSDs may actually be more hackable than the conventional hard drives they replaced. When you overwrite a file on an SSD, you don’t leave the same clear record that you do when you delete a file on your computer. In fact, some members of the computer forensics community have sounded the alarm about the growing popularity of SSDs and the trouble they could cause in terms of evidence discovery and retention in the future. Graeme Bell and Richard Boddington of the University of Murdoch in Australia even went so far as to opine that “it seems possible that the golden age for forensic recovery and analysis of deleted data and deleted metadata may now be ending” because of SSDs.

How hard is it to hack a black box? Technical experts say not very.

In the case of MH17, the boxes aren’t likely to provide much new information. Forensics teams use them to determine the mechanical or human cause of a crash. But recovering the boxes could be useful in this case to categorically rule out pilot error or mechanical malfunction. If the data on the boxes does in fact suggest that something else happened to the plane, that development would no doubt fuel the conspiracy theories that have already taken root across the Internet, which could play to Russia’s advantage.

The Eyewitness Testimony

In the case of MH17, the world already knows who the most important witnesses are: members of the separatist army who quickly took to social media to brag about shooting down a plane they believed was a Ukrainian cargo jet. Of particular significance is a post from former Russian military officer Igor Strelkov, the self-declared minister of defense of the Donetsk People’s Republic. It appeared on VK.Com, Russia’s version of Facebook, and reportedly boasted that his troops had scored a hit, stating “we warned you—do not fly in our sky.”

Related Story

The problem is that the witnesses are recanting. Strelkov (or someone) removed the post in short order. Similarly, as Agence France-Presse reports, pro-separatist forces began taking down incriminating tweets and posts shortly after they appeared. In one particularly revealing exchange, the Donetsk Republic Twitter feed, @dnrpress, acknowledged that “self-propelled Buk surface-to-air missile systems have been seized by the DNR from (Ukrainian) surface-to-air missile regiment A1402,” according to AFP.

In many ways, that may be the most important tweet in the entire conflict, since it now purports to show not only that not only did the separatists have the means to carry out the attack, but that they did not acquire the missile launcher from Russia, as the U.S. believes. Should Russia decide to put more distance between Moscow and the separatists, it may use that argument. It’s unclear how the social media posts, in total, will affect the U.S. case.

The good news for investigators is that items on the Internet tend to stay on the Internet, especially if they are interesting. Multiple screen grabs caught the posts before they vanished, each one corroborating the other.

All of this evidence tells the story of a unique moment in history.

In one swift command execution, one man, sitting behind an old radar screen and armed with a 1,500 pound rocket, caused the deaths of almost 300 people, affected Putin’s relationship with the separatists as well as Russia’s with Europe and possibly changed the direction of the conflict—and history. If the last several days provide any indication of what lies ahead, there will be denial, accusation and overt lying to come. We may never really know what happened to MH17, but we can still get much closer to truth.

This post originally appeared on Defense One, an Atlantic partner site.

Most Popular

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.